Did you review the property reports that were prepared by Dennis Fung in connection with this case?
I can't remember if I reviewed all of his property reports or some of them. We have looked at them off and on for item numbers and I don't remember if I've seen all of them.
Now, it is required both by your office and also by the Los Angeles Police Department manual that the property reports be filled out accurately and completely; is that correct?
Accurately and completely, depending on certain things, require different completeness. A lot of it is narrative, and so, you know, what does complete mean? It's an interpretative issue.
Let me show you People's 187 which is actually in evidence. I ask you to take a look at it for a moment.
187 of the property reports, the official property reports filled out for items 1 through 14 in this case, which would be items taken at Rockingham, could you take a look at that?
Now--and I believe you said a moment ago that it's required that these reports be filled out accurately and completely; is that right?
Was any remedial action taken with Dennis Fung for his using the incorrect dates repeatedly in this report?
Let me ask you this. Do you see where it says what date these property items were taken into custody?
Okay. And, in fact, on page 3--take a look at page 3, would you? There, Dennis Fung wrote that all these items were collected on June 14th, didn't he?
No. Asking the question, that is in evidence. Whether or not she knows what date Dennis Fung collected certain items in evidence, that hasn't been established, foundation, with this witness.
Are you aware that Dennis Fung collected items of evidence at Rockingham on June 13th, 1994?
As I recall, if--that he did the Rockingham scene on the same day that he did Bundy, then that would be June 13th if I recall correctly.
Okay. So as you look at those official property reports, those dates of June 12th and June 14th are both incorrect; is that right?
In fact, the property reports, if you look at the front page, don't even say when the items were booked, do they?
That is in a computerized system, so I wouldn't worry that it's on this piece of paper actually. This is becoming an obsolete form as we speak.
So that would not be a critical issue, as to fill in that date because that date is in the computer the minute the stuff is entered into evidence. So--
Is there a requirement in the Los Angeles Police Department manual that these written property reports be filled out accurately and completely?
Miss Kestler, do you have any doubt that it's appropriate to fill out these forms accurately and completely?
KEY QUOTEMiss Kestler, on the same form, you're supposed to put down for the item seized the quantity of an item seized; is that correct?
Well, Miss Kestler, for the bloodstains that were collected, is there any indication on that property report the number of swatches, number of swatches for any of the bloodstains collected at Rockingham?
Miss Kestler, do you see anywhere on those reports that anybody wrote in the number of swatches collected for any of the bloodstains?
But for items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 14, isn't it correct that they don't say how many swatches were collected for any of those items?
Well, it doesn't say--in the quantity number, it doesn't put anything, but it says "Cloth swatch." So that indicates singular.
Now, I'll simply show you also for People's 188 in evidence the property reports which includes the drops on the Bundy walkway.
Isn't it true that for items 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52, again, under the word "Quantity," the quantity was never filled in as to the number of swatches collected?
My question is, has any remedial action been taken with respect to Dennis Fung's failure to note on the property reports the quantity of swatches collected through each of these bloodstains?
The issue is whether--well, he has two options. He can either--so I want to paraphrase something before I answer your question.
Well, I would ask, your Honor, that you ask the witness to please respond to the question, which was, was any remedial action taken.
No. Not--you're misstating what I'm saying. There are two ways to book bloodstains. You can either count the swatches or you can say "A red stain collected on swatches" or on cloth and then you wouldn't count them. So--
You could say "Envelope containing" and then it would be one envelope. So--but no, there has been no--there has been no remedial other than training that he clarified exactly what he--how he's doing it.
Miss Kestler, if a criminalist collects four coins and puts them in a coin envelope for collection, is the individual criminalist supposed to say "Coins" under the word "Quantity, no. 4"?
You could say "Envelope containing four coins." So, you know, there are other ways of writing this.
Okay. So if in the property report it said either "Envelope containing four coins" or it said "Envelope, coins," and under the quantity "Four," both of those approaches would satisfy the requirements of the LAPD manual; is that correct?
I don't think the manual is explicit, but that would satisfy my expectations, yes.
In this instance, Miss Kestler, Dennis Fung did not put down under "Quantity" the number of swatches in the envelope; is that correct?
I believe there's additional swatches. No, he didn't put the number down, that's correct.
Nor did Dennis Fung write in the "Content" area "Coin envelope containing four swatches, five swatches" or however many swatches there were, did he?
Now, as of June 12th, 1994, was it the policy and practice of the Los Angeles Police Department crime laboratory that no evidence shall be distributed to laboratory units for analysis unless either the booking criminalist accompanies the evidence at all times or the evidence has been officially booked at the evidence control unit?
Was it the--was it the policy and practice of the Los Angeles Police Department as of June 12th, 1994 that no evidence shall be distributed to anyone other than the booking criminalist--
--unless the booking--I'm sorry--withdrawn. Was it the policy and practice of the Los Angeles Police Department as of June 12th, 1994, that for items of evidence that have not yet been booked, that the booking criminalist accompany the item to be analyzed at all times?
Is that one of the procedures that is currently in the manual that has not been altered?
Do you believe it would be an appropriate measure to take to protect the integrity of items that have not yet been officially booked for the criminalist who collected the item or who will book that item to accompany it at all times?
It would be a nice thing to do, but in the absence of being able to do that or doing that, it should be documented, and that's all that I would require; who it was given to, what date and when.
Is it--was it the policy and practice of the Los Angeles Police Department criminalist unit as of June 12th, 1994, that in instances where opinions are rendered as a result of any chemical or physical test and/or procedures performed in the field which cannot be reproduced in the laboratory, that an analyzed evidence report be prepared?
It is vague and I--but I think I can clarify it, if you would like me to attempt that.
If it's a--our policy is that we don't write analyzed evidence reports for screening tests, presumptive tests for the most part. You can and that's one of the things that's even vague within our own policy, which needs to be clarified and will be in this manual. We will determine whether we're going to write them for every time or not at all.
Miss Kestler, are you aware of the fact that Dennis Fung claims that in the first week of July of 1994, he went out to the Ford Bronco and he did a presumptive test on one of the smears that he observed on the saddle of the driver's door?
Sustained. Sustained. Rephrase the question, please. It's argumentative the way it's formed.
The way you phrased it--I'm not saying it's an improper subject to inquire into. The way you phrased the question was argumentative.
Are you aware that Dennis Fung testified that during the first week in July, he went out to the Ford Bronco and he did a presumptive test on one of the smears that he said he observed on the saddle of the driver's door?
And are you aware of the fact that when he--that during that first week in July when he went out there, that he did not prepare an analyzed evidence report?
Well, Miss Kestler, when we met with you on July 13th of 1995, just last month, didn't you say--
--didn't you say that it would be the practice and procedure of your laboratory to require that a criminalist prepare a report even for a presumptive test if the person was not going to be able to collect the evidence and bring it back to the laboratory?
Isn't it your policy and procedure as the director of the Los Angeles Police Department crime laboratory that whenever an analytic test is done in the field and the item of evidence cannot be collected and brought back to the laboratory, that an analyzed evidence report be prepared?
No. I don't think I said that even in that meaning. I think what I said was that it should be noted somewhere at least. The question of writing the report is what is up in the air at this point.
Well, when you say "It should be noted," in other words, it should be noted that the person went out there, that the person conducted the test and what the results were. Is that what you mean?
Okay. And are you aware of the fact that Dennis Fung did not note anywhere that he--that he conducted the test and what the results were?
As of June 12th, 1994, was it the policy and procedure of the Los Angeles Police Department criminalist laboratory to take whatever measures are necessary to protect a crime scene?
Whatever is in their power. The crime scene--it would be nice that all criminalists can do what they can do at a crime scene, but the crime scene is already in control of the police officers and it's not really our crime scene. It's the detectives' crime scene.
Well, hasn't--hasn't a memo been given out to all employees of the Los Angeles Police Department that is the responsibility of the criminalist?
Actually, your Honor, it's already part of--maybe we should not mark it separately. The manual itself is already marked as 1017.
Why don't you just show that briefly to Mr. Darden so he knows what you're referring to, counsel.
All right. Actually it's been brought to my attention there may be need to do this as an separate exhibit, and I will make a separate copy.
Have you seen that memo which is directed to "All personnel of the Los Angeles Police Department"?
Well, it's a notice from 1974. If you give me a moment. It's before I even came to work for the department, and it's not signed by Gates by the way. So I'm not sure it's official,
All right. Do you have any questions regarding this item? I think we need to establish a foundation for it.
Miss Kestler, from time to time, is the Los Angeles Police Department's policies and procedures updated by memos that emanate from the office of operations or from the--I'm sorry--from the office of operations?
Well, I don't believe that's where it emanates from now because the office of operations, for example, has no functional responsibility over me. So I think it's changed.
All right. Well, was there a time when procedures that were to be implemented for all personnel would emanate from the office of operations, Los Angeles Police Department?
Is it the policy of the police department that--the Los Angeles Police Department manual contains procedures and policies that have been enacted, implemented many years ago; isn't that correct?
And in fact, they stay in effect until such time as another memo replaces them, is that correct, or determines that they are no longer in effect? Isn't that the policy and procedure of the Los Angeles Police Department?
Sustained. Miss Kestler, is this item that you have here, 1318, to your knowledge, is that a current document?
Did you say to this jury a while ago that you reviewed all the contents of this crime scene field guide manual that was prepared for your division of the police department?
Did you say that in 1992, you reviewed the contents of the draft version of the SID division's field unit crime scene manual?
No. I said I began to review it, and in the beginning to review it, I saw many things I wasn't in agreement with and sent it back. So this is not one of the things I got to.
So you're saying, when you reviewed the manual, you never noticed this document from Darryl Gates in it?
I didn't get that far in the manual. There were a lot of things up front that I didn't--that I thought were missing or unclear or not what I thought was our policy. So I sent it back for review.
Well, would you--would you agree that it is the policy and procedure of the Los Angeles Police Department as of June 12th, 1994, that to whatever extent possible, efforts should be taken not to trample or obliterate evidence?
And from what you have learned of this case from the testimony of other witnesses, in your opinion, if Mr. Goldman's body had been dragged over a glove, hat and envelope through the soil and those items were then moved, would that be in conflict with the policy and procedure not to trample or obliterate evidence?
Assume for a moment that Mr. Goldman's body had been dragged through the soil and disturbed items of evidence or potential evidence that were lying on the ground, including such items as an envelope, a glove and a hat. Would that constitute trampling or obliterating evidence?
Assume that Mr. Goldman's body had been dragged over the ground, and in the course of it, an envelope and a glove--
By the way, was it the policy and procedure of the criminalist laboratory on June 12, 1994 that it would be the appropriate thing for the criminalist to conduct a quick search for perishable evidence before then going back and doing any more thorough search of the scene? Would that be the standard procedure?
You would like to do that. Oftentimes, you can't get into the scene for some reason, but that would be the ideal condition.
And would you agree that it would be dangerous to--to remove a body over perishable items of evidence such as a glove, hat, envelope before those items were removed from the scene?
When you say "Over, removed over," if they don't touch the items and the body is on a plastic sheet provided by the Coroner or something, so you could protect it and you were careful not to touch the items, you could hypothetically carry the body over them. If you mean that they're going to roll the evidence around or something, that would not be an ideal situation. You would prefer not to have that happen.
Okay. And was it also the policy and procedure in 1994 not to contaminate the scene?
Well, again, "Contaminate," that's a question. It's almost impossible not to walk in and out of a scene and bring possibly something into the scene or take something out of the scene, but you'd make all efforts not to contaminate the evidence. I'm not sure what you--
As the director of the laboratory, would it appropriate--would it be scientifically appropriate to take crime scene evidence from one crime scene and carry it into a second crime scene?
Overruled. It's not a hypothetical. It's a policy, practice or procedures question.
As long as the item of evidence is already contained within something that was provided by the laboratory, let's say a container of some sort, and as long as it isn't allowed to--you know, if you don't take it out and shake it in the air or something, I don't see any problem with that.
Well, you mean, as long as you don't shake it in the air, it's okay to bring an item from one crime scene to the other? Is that your testimony?
Yes. There's no reason not to do that. I'm trying to think of something. If you're referring to the glove let's say, if you don't take it out and you simply have it in a closed container where it isn't--have any contact with anything else and you look in the container and you don't take the glove out over any other evidence, there's no reason--nothing's going to happen to it. I mean, there's nothing flying around in the air that's going to fall in there.
Well, what about other hair and trace evidence that may be in the area where all these police officers are moving around when the bag is opened?
Isn't there a possibility that other hair or trace evidence can land on an object if it is brought into the crime scene from another crime scene and it is not in a closed package at all times?
It's a remote possibility. If that was true, you'd have to really be generating some turmoil in the area. If--otherwise, you'd have hair and fibers all over everything all the time. We'd never get any crime scene evidence that was of any value.
KEY QUOTEExactly, Miss Kestler. And isn't that one reason why you don't want to bring items from one crime scene to another crime scene, to risk that kind of thing happening?
Oh, I hadn't even noticed that before.
If you don't take it out and shake it in the air or something, I don't see any problem with that.
It's a remote possibility. If that was true, you'd have to really be generating some turmoil in the area. If -- otherwise, you'd have hair and fibers all over everything all the time. We'd never get any crime scene evidence that was of any value.
Miss Kestler, do you have any doubt that it's appropriate to fill out these forms accurately and completely?
There has been no remedial other than training that he clarified exactly what he -- how he's doing it.